The Future of Democracy

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the most serious issue - and the greatest threat to democracy - in American politics is that you don’t have any liberals of consequence. You’ve got Bernie and AOC who are closer to being liberals than any of their compatriots, but even they aren’t quite there. Moderate democrats are centre-right. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party are centre-left. 

In real-world terms, you’ve saddled yourselves with a political right, a right-leaning centre, and an ineffectual left-leaning centre.

This doesn’t really bode well for either effective governance or the preservation of political liberty.

Good luck.

Boru

And this I think ties in with something I mentioned earlier, namely that according to polls, while the majority of Americans are now socially liberal, a significant majority still remains fiscally conservative. If the polls are accurate, then social spending is viewed positively by a minority in the US.

Maybe I’m still tainted by my European upbringing, but ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’ sounds like gibberish to me. Or maybe those things mean something different to USians.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And this I think ties in with something I mentioned earlier, namely that according to polls, while the majority of Americans are now socially liberal, a significant majority still remains fiscally conservative. If the polls are accurate, then social spending is viewed positively by a minority in the US.

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

But I think what has always happened in the U.S. to stop social spending is the fear that someone undeserving (i.e. the wrong race) is going to get the money.

It’s been said - with some justice, I think - that a conservative is someone who can’t enjoy a meal unless he knows someone else is starving.

Boru

[JairCrawford]

And this I think ties in with something I mentioned earlier, namely that according to polls, while the majority of Americans are now socially liberal, a significant majority still remains fiscally conservative. If the polls are accurate, then social spending is viewed positively by a minority in the US.

Maybe I’m still tainted by my European upbringing, but ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’ sounds like gibberish to me. Or maybe those things mean something different to USians.

Boru

I think that combination is largely a phenomenon here in the US. There is widespread nervousness about “too much socialism” here. At least, that’s how I interpret it. A lot of slippery slope fallacies about how “if the government ‘controls too much money’ then what next?”, that sort of thing. I also think people are skeptical here of any notion of taxing the rich. The government here has been making careers out of finding loopholes for the rich for so long, a lot of people here have the mindset that it’s futile to even try to make legislation that properly taxes the rich. I think a lot of people actually believe it can’t be done and that new loopholes will always be found, and are afraid the burden will inevitably fall on them, so they don’t even go there. They don’t even consider it.

Personally, that it’s gotten to that point to me is a very sad statement on our society, but that’s just how I see it.

[Ranjr]

In the present, here in this red state, my vote doesn't count.  There is a tyranny of slack jawed bible thumpers, passing laws for the hicks back home that only make life harder for the people they hate.  This is the future.

[JairCrawford]

In the present, here in this red state, my vote doesn't count.  There is a tyranny of slack jawed bible thumpers, passing laws for the hicks back home that only make life harder for the people they hate.  This is the future.

I felt like that for a while, but then Georgia went blue in 2020-2021 and I felt like for once my vote actually counted. I was actually surprised we went blue both times.

[vulcanlogician]

And this I think ties in with something I mentioned earlier, namely that according to polls, while the majority of Americans are now socially liberal, a significant majority still remains fiscally conservative. If the polls are accurate, then social spending is viewed positively by a minority in the US.

Maybe I’m still tainted by my European upbringing, but ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’ sounds like gibberish to me. Or maybe those things mean something different to USians.

Boru

Fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily pertain to spending. It's simply about avoidance of state debt. A full blown communist society (that taxes and spends a ton) could be fiscally conservative.

[JairCrawford]

Maybe I’m still tainted by my European upbringing, but ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’ sounds like gibberish to me. Or maybe those things mean something different to USians.

Boru

Fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily pertain to spending. It's simply about avoidance of state debt. A full blown communist society (that taxes and spends a ton) could be fiscally conservative.

Based on my very, very limited knowledge of the subject, I was under the impression that communism aims for cashless society, as in, no currency.

[vulcanlogician]

Fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily pertain to spending. It's simply about avoidance of state debt. A full blown communist society (that taxes and spends a ton) could be fiscally conservative.

Based on my very, very limited knowledge of the subject, I was under the impression that communism aims for cashless society, as in, no currency.

That's one of it's supposed goals, in a utopian sense. I don't think such a thing is possible. Anything that is widely valued could count as money.

The basic goal of communism is that the workers own the means of production. You could attain that and still have money in your society.

Also, just to clarify what I said before... I realize that fiscal conservatives often focus on spending cuts. And in that way, reductions in spending are part of fiscal conservatism's platform. My point was, if you consider their end goal (no state debt)... such a thing could (hypothetically) be attained in a socialist or communist state. (I made it sound like fiscal conservatism and spending reductions are like apples and oranges. That's not true.)

[JairCrawford]

Based on my very, very limited knowledge of the subject, I was under the impression that communism aims for cashless society, as in, no currency.

That's one of it's supposed goals, in a utopian sense. I don't think such a thing is possible. Anything that is widely valued could count as money.

The basic goal of communism is that the workers own the means of production. You could attain that and still have money in your society.

Also, just to clarify what I said before... I realize that fiscal conservatives often focus on spending cuts. And in that way, reductions in spending are part of fiscal conservatism's platform. My point was, if you consider their end goal (no state debt)... such a thing could (hypothetically) be attained in a socialist or communist state. (I made it sound like fiscal conservatism and spending reductions are like apples and oranges. That's not true.)

That makes more sense. I too doubt how realistic it would be to completely lose all currency.

As for debt though, I assume, being the optimist that I am, that the majority of people here in the forum who say they are fiscally conservative fall under the category you speak of. I can appreciate and respect a genuine desire to get rid of state debt. It’s only when people become selectively concerned about it, only on certain issues, where I start to get grumpy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our current state and societal debt is easily explained as a disastrous flirtation with ethno-socialism. A vast network of grift...but, you know, only for the right kind of people.

Or, as others put it - socialism for the rich... rugged individualism for the poor. Many of the right kind of people, even, are cut off from programs for fear that any plan to address their concerns might..accidentally, give purchase to the feared other.

@Boru - it might seem like gibberish because it's a response to a gibberish situation. Think of it like this. Some people believe that you should spend money solving societal issues. I think we should make money doing it. We're already footing the bill (and more)....but we have yet to receive the goods promised. There is no reason that the prosperity of any one of us has to be necessarily in opposition to the prosperity of all of us. We've been thinking about this as a zero sum game for too long - and it shows.